Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably 680 So. 2d 413 - Bonifay v. State (1996), 762 So. 2d 879 - Brooks v. State (2000)
1 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · 204 So. 2d 515 - State v. Jones · 255 So. 2d 675 - Chesebrough v. State · 229 So. 2d 855 - Paramore v. State · 133 So. 2d 729 - Spencer v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Wide latitude in the argument to a jury is permitted. This Court in Spencer v. State, 133 So.2d 729, at 731 (Fla. 1961), explained: "`The only other point urged for reversal is the contention that the remarks of the Assistant State Attorneys during the closing arguments were of such an inflammatory nature as to influence the jury unduly to the prejudice of the appellant. We think no useful purpose would be served by analyzing in detail the comments of the prosecuting officers. The rule is that considerable latitude is allowed in arguments on the merits of the case. Logical inferences from the evidence are permissible. Public prosecutors are allowed to advance to the jury all legitimate arguments within the limits of their forensic talents in order to effectuate their enforcement of the criminal laws. Their discussion of the evidence, so long as they remain within the limits of the record, is not to be condemned merely because they appeal to the jury to `perform their public duty' by bringing in a verdict of guilty. The prosecutors in the instant case remained within the bounds of the evidence. Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 , 98 So. 605 . In actuality, there is probably very little that the prosecutors themselves could have advanced which would have been any more damning of the conduct of this appellant than the gruesome evidence which was presented from the witness stand.' (emphasis supplied) "Further, we announced in Paramore v. State, 229 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1969), that it ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“from state statutes pertaining to lewd and lascivious behavior because it is committed in places frequented by consenting adults. [8] I would affirm Appellant's conviction. ROBERTS, J., concurs. NOTES [1] Lewd and lascivious behavior. If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in § 775.082 or § 775.083.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“abominable and detestable crime against nature”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.